Maybe it's a bit late to be making new suggestions, but what about making a loosely-connected family of games rather than concentrating on a single, big project? This might improve the eggs-to-baskets ratio, if you know what I mean.

For example, Slick (say) could be used to make ten games covering ten genres (a platformer, a scrolling shooter, a small-scale RPG, a racing game, and so on) with the same graphics, technology, style, characters and story linking all of the games together. The overall project would be big enough to attract outside attention, would show off Java technology, and would let a lot of people work together simultaneously (migrating between ten loose groups).

It looks like we are heading towards a space sim so i want to suggest something like freelancer, instead of a planet per dev or whatever, do it by zones. Then within the zones could be planets, mission assignments/quests, weak planets, pirate planets, etc....and per zone is how that programmer/dev wants it, also in freelancer a way to travel fast is by using something like a highway system, you go in these big circles and it boosts you unless pirates break one of the circles and stops you to try and kill you, but that's an idea. Planets is easier but zones might be cooler.

I personally would not like to open source the project. I dont really see the point,I know this statement can open up an arguement but id rather not argue on such a small matter, I just wanna say my bit.I dont see the need as people that are joining the project should already know how to program and dont really need to learn off other peoples code (thats what this forum is for).Other programers should only know how to use the classes supplied and not be tempted to spend alot of time criticising other people code.I would rather have a utility style setup (rather than an engine) so that programers can interact with other peoples code without having to learn much about its implementation.

I see your point, but here is my case. I know how to program and I've done quite a few games on my own, but I'm still rather a beginner just getting into the upper level CS classes at college. I'd love to help if there was something I could contribute (like with a mini-game scheme), but very likely won't be able to do much, and additionally I've yet to actually get OpenGL (or other libraries) working. Despite this, being able to see a intricate program beyond my own abilities as it is developed is a great opportunity.

I couldn't be sure, but I believe the community is mature enough to avoid petty criticisms and work together.

I can contribute in any way I will. Regardless of what setup we go for.

That being said, I kinda dislike the idea of a rpg as it's very hard to not make something that blends into what's already out there.

I'm all for online component ala spore just allow ppl to make up content (enemies being created by players that adhere a set of rules so one isn't necessary more powerful then the other) that stored somewhere on-line and ppl play there games with a random selection from that on-line database.

Also is there a reason why fps like games where discarded off the idea list? I see a lot of advantages one is that it's hard to stick to/tell a storyline and fps generally don't really require one, etc... though considering jake2 exist you might want to go a different route anyway.

Online RTS would be cool we can add all sorts of AI in there perhaps the goal would not be to actually control/order the units directly as in typical RTS-es but rather to come up with the right combination of AI blocks/automated command units/... to make your side win perhaps allow the players to program their own AI bits.

Different idea consider Warcraft 3 and it's custom game scene have a look at DOTA Herowars (and variants) Towerwars etc - providing a free not so restricted sandbox version of what warcraft3 provides might make for a pretty sweet showcase.

//edit Oh dear I forgot about hero line wars - kinda like puzzle bubble 2P but then with each person controlling hero killing monsters as you kill monsters you gain money allowing you to send monsters to the other player.

//edit2 seems I missed some pages in this thread before I replied.

As for organisation absolute minimum to go by is having the occasional phone call/video conference + a hudson server

if however you want to get fancy have a look at jazz.net - fee for opensource projects.

I agree that Elite is a great idea, although I don't like the 3D controls/view in it, I think they're too hard. I'd vote for keeping the perspective top-down 2D. That's easier on us in terms of art resources required as well (we would only need one sprite per ship that could be rotated). Similarly we don't need to worry about a lot of complicated collision and rendering algorithms, either.

Either that, or a persistent online RTS which I've been trying to write for about 10 years, but I really don't think it's possible to any great shakes.

I feel I also have alot to offer in this department, but the only problem with an RTS is the resources (if 3D).

Something to note, Iv been watching alot of startcraft 2 videos and it looks like the only added engine ability aside from cool looking attacks, is the ability for specific units to walk up walls thats height would stop others from doing so (Im sure this was done in DOW). So other than graphics as far as engines go I dont think there bringing anything new to the table.

Also the console market has dominated most other types of games, But one strong point the PC is strategies. I think Atari decided not to develop for PC anymore and is focusing on the console market.

So "sales" wise i think an RTS is a good idea.

that said an RTS engine can be turned into many other sorts of games (like Diablo).

Just a FWIW, as a measure of interest, I count 26 users that have responded to this thread. That's including some that probably will not be able to contribute (I know Riven and a couple others mentioned they likely won't have time), but it's still a reasonable amount of interest - I imagine that once everything settles out that means at least 10 people will be up for at least some level of involvement in this, and if we recruit elsewhere for things like art and music, we can probably bump that up a little bit more.

How about core code contributors, though? Does anyone care to come forward and tentatively step up to take one some level of responsibility in this, as in, you'll give out your phone number (at least to Kevin), put several hours a week into this, and take charge of some piece of the development rather than merely being an occasional contributor? (I'll assume that competency is a given, of course)

From my experience, usually what happens is that a smallish group of people will do 90% of the actual work, so the scope of the project should really be tuned to the size (and skills!) of that group.

I can offer to contribute to and help direct any physics integration if that's part of this, especially if it's in 2d (I'm happy to help with 3d, too, but I don't have quite as much expertise there). Also if there's any statistical or trading/market stuff, that's close to my real work, so I could probably offer something there. Apart from that, I will help out whenever possible, but I'm not sure I could realistically lead a significant portion of the project due to time and expertise constraints...that said, I'd be up to contribute a few hours a week starting around the beginning of February.

I could consistently commit a few hours a week up through May, at which point I would probably become one of the more intermittent developers. But in the mean time I could be one of the major contributers probably.

Something to note, Iv been watching alot of startcraft 2 videos and it looks like the only added engine ability aside from cool looking attacks, is the ability for specific units to walk up walls thats height would stop others from doing so (Im sure this was done in DOW). So other than graphics as far as engines go I dont think there bringing anything new to the table.

I'd have to agree here, rts has seen the least revolutionary pieces apparantly having water/ground/air combat + different ground conditions (height) is all something already seen in total annihilation(97). One could argue that the super-super unit concept was introduced in warcraft3 but that was pretty much also in totala with the commander and al. even the whole promotion-on-x-kills was already in totala.

Cool, As well as voting can people also share: how much time there willing to put in, the areas they would like to focus on.It would be unfortunate to have alot of people vote for something that there not going to develop.

Harvest Moon -style MMO with a persisted world. It would have a practically unlimited world map (procedurally created and fine tuned by artists) with many different kinds of environments (seaside, fields, forests, mountains, deserts etc.) where you can do different kinds of activities (fishing, farming, hunting, chopping trees, building houses and towns with practitioners of different trades, gathering mushrooms, digging for gold, making maps of the unlimited world, exploring the world as an archaeologist etc.). The world would be shardless, persisted and evolving (maybe using Project Darkstar). If you cut down a tree, the tree will stay cut down until slowly new trees grow up there. If you cut down all threes, you might end up with a desert. If you hunt too many foxes for their fur, then later you might have a rabbit infestation eating your crop.

From a developer point of view, it would make it possible for multiple developers to work on different areas: engine, generating world maps, generating forests, animal behavior, different activities (fishing, farming etc.), different kinds of buildings and trades in a town etc. Some challenges are for example balancing the economy and different activities, and creating lots of art with consistent style and diverse content.

As in resources?Then I ment in the way of models and keyframe animations, including there UV map/s

Nothing that your wouldn't have do with any rpg or fps generaly you can get away with imperfections since in rts's your seeing the units from some distance as opposed with other games. Also most of the units are defined by their tools of war which is just funky animations.

maybe some sort of persistent world where the individual battles you have effect the overall game war.

Even allowing ppl to design there own 'race'/units under a predefined set of rules. Each race would get ranked based upon players winning with it(and their rank) + allowing ppl to vote on ascetics. Decent races will bubble up automatically - and saves us the time from creating them + fine-tuning them. (which is probably a lot of work..) + Maps off-course which also saves us from making those (if not generated.) Given we got all that working we can always add the goal of Massive multilayer-ness.

I don't know you might want to conceptualise our idea's further (not too far else ppl get too invested). On the flip-side as long as one is allowed to change their vote seeing the way everyone is initially leaning to might not be a bad idea either.Apparently kev went ahead with it

Harvest Moon -style MMO with a persisted world. It would have a practically unlimited world map (procedurally created and fine tuned by artists) with many different kinds of environments (seaside, fields, forests, mountains, deserts etc.) where you can do different kinds of activities (fishing, farming, hunting, chopping trees, building houses and towns with practitioners of different trades, gathering mushrooms, digging for gold, making maps of the unlimited world, exploring the world as an archaeologist etc.). The world would be shardless, persisted and evolving (maybe using Project Darkstar). If you cut down a tree, the tree will stay cut down until slowly new trees grow up there. If you cut down all threes, you might end up with a desert. If you hunt too many foxes for their fur, then later you might have a rabbit infestation eating your crop.

Awesome idea. It sounds silly but I love the idea of having a persistent world where people interact with the trees, plants, animals, vehicles, aliens, monsters and people. It bugs me in even the simplest platformers where enemies you have killed reappear.

Having many people interact with the world makes it even more imersive and I think it would really be worth it in terms of increasing its impressiveness to players and developers.

For developers, it is impressive because, well look, everyone here says its difficult to get MMO networking right!For players, there is clearly a trend these days for multiplayer games. Team Fortress 2 is a great example of a multiplayer only game.

The idea above is quite ambitious but at the same time quite open so although alot of planning would be required for all the details, the main foundations could be set up fairly quickly.

Although it's very unlikely that I'll be helping develop the game, I have to say that from a "Java showcasing" point of view this idea seems superior to both the space-trading and RTS proposals. It has the benefit that it isn't at the mercy of story/mission content, it's all about the technology (which is surely where, as programmers, our strengths lie).

If someone were to ask you "So can you develop proper games in Java?", and you were to answer "Sure! Just check out Community Project Mark 562" what would you want them to see? For me, I'd like them to see a single package (i.e. not collection of mini-games) with a snappy interface; fast, pretty 3D graphics; and some form of physical simulation. Multi-player interaction would be a bonus. All three proposals could do this, but the other two seem to come with extra baggage.

Harvest Moon -style MMO with a persisted world. It would have a practically unlimited world map (procedurally created and fine tuned by artists) with many different kinds of environments (seaside, fields, forests, mountains, deserts etc.) where you can do different kinds of activities (fishing, farming, hunting, chopping trees, building houses and towns with practitioners of different trades, gathering mushrooms, digging for gold, making maps of the unlimited world, exploring the world as an archaeologist etc.). The world would be shardless, persisted and evolving (maybe using Project Darkstar). If you cut down a tree, the tree will stay cut down until slowly new trees grow up there. If you cut down all threes, you might end up with a desert. If you hunt too many foxes for their fur, then later you might have a rabbit infestation eating your crop.

From a developer point of view, it would make it possible for multiple developers to work on different areas: engine, generating world maps, generating forests, animal behavior, different activities (fishing, farming etc.), different kinds of buildings and trades in a town etc. Some challenges are for example balancing the economy and different activities, and creating lots of art with consistent style and diverse content.

Yes, another good idea and one I have also thought about.But the depth at which it would have to be developed to be fun would probably go far beyond our scope, or?

But if we think about it, would the Elite-Clone not also just be HarvestMoon in space (or at least it should be).We do not have to make the Elite clone a 1:1 3d clone. Why not a 'step-based' (where you move like in the early Ultima games)?So you 'step' around the galaxy, through solar systems and on planets.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org